Cisco Sourcefire SNORT OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is the #7 ranked solution in our list of top Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software. It is most often compared to Cisco Stealthwatch: Cisco Sourcefire SNORT vs Cisco Stealthwatch

What is Cisco Sourcefire SNORT?

Snort is an open-source, rule-based, intrusion detection and prevention system. It combines the benefits of signature-, protocol-, and anomaly-based inspection methods to deliver flexible protection from malware attacks. Snort gained notoriety for being able to accurately detect threats at high speeds.

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT is also known as Sourcefire SNORT.

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Buyer's Guide

Download the Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: September 2021

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Customers

CareCore, City of Biel, Dimension Data, LightEdge, Lone Star College System, National Rugby League, Port Aventura, Smart City Networks, Telecom Italia, The Department of Education in Western Australia

Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Cisco Sourcefire SNORT pricing:
  • "I don't know the exact amount, but most of the time when I go to a company with a proposition, they will say, "This thing that you are selling is good, but it's expensive. Why don't you propose something like FortiGate, Check Point, or Palo Alto?" Cisco device are expensive compared to other devices."
  • "Licensing for this solution is paid on a yearly basis."

Filter Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
ITCS user
Lead Program Manager at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Intelligent with good threat detection capabilities but could be easier to implement

What is our primary use case?

The product is primarily used for an IDS, Intrusion Detection Software, element.

Pros and Cons

  • "It is quite an intelligent product."
  • "The implementation could be a bit easier."

What other advice do I have?

The solution is the latest version. We're still in the process of implementing it, and therefore are using the most recent release. I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. Currently, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'm not completely migrated over. I need more time with the solution to really gauge its effectiveness.
GoumouFerdinand
Security Engineer at Socitech SA
Real User
Top 10
Good functionality and has the possibility to have one manager for other firewalls but stability needs to improve

What is our primary use case?

I work directly with clients, such as financial companies like banks, for example. Most of the time they want they're product to be on their premises, only in their local area.

Pros and Cons

  • "In general, the features are all great. However, if I need to take hardware for ASA, because they need to upgrade to Firepower, we want to create rules. For that, most of the time we go to the command line. Right now Firepower is working really hard on the grid. You can apply all those rules to the grid. Even if you want to monitor the logs, for example, the activity will tell you which particular user has been blocked because of that rule. Firepower's monitoring interface is very good, because you can see each and every piece. ASA also had it, but there you needed to type the command and be under the server to see all that stuff. In Firepower you have the possibility to go directly to the firewall. The way the monitoring is displayed is also very nice. The feature I appreciate most in Firepower is actually the grid. The grid has worked very well."
  • "To be frank, the product is not really stable, although they're working on that. Whenever I go to the technical community with an issue, they will usually say that it is not there yet, but the technical team are working on it. The issues are not insolvable. I think they should just keep working on the product to make sure that the product can become very stable. The technical support is great. I appreciate that. We have a lot of communities supporting Firepower now, so you can find help for whatever issue you have."

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution and give it a rating of seven out of ten. That is mainly because of the expense. I don't know the exact amount, but most of the time when I go to a company with a proposition, they will say, "This thing that you are selling is good, but it's expensive. Why don't you propose something like FortiGate, Check Point, or Palo Alto?" Cisco devices are expensive compared to other devices. If not for that, I would rate it as nine out of ten. Because of the expense, I prefer to give it seven. Most of the time when I lose an offer from this product, it's only because of…
Learn what your peers think about Cisco Sourcefire SNORT. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: September 2021.
536,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
AE
Information Security Operations Expert at Asiacell
Real User
Known bugs consume memory and CPU resources to the point where we are seeking a new solution

What is our primary use case?

The primary use of this solution is intrusion prevention, for both user-to-server traffic, and server-to-server traffic. Most of our environment is Cisco including ISE, our access control, routers, switches, call center, and TelePresence.

Pros and Cons

  • "The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically learn the traffic in our environment, and change the merit recommendations based on that."
  • "We are unhappy with technical support for this solution, and it is not as professional as what we typically expect from Cisco."

What other advice do I have?

A lot of Cisco equipment is very good, but in judging the model of this solution that we have, I feel that it is the worst. It has very big issues for us in terms of performance, reliability, and stability. It is slowing our network traffic down considerably. I would rate this solution a one out of ten.
ITCS user
Team Lead at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 20
Offers good protection and a huge rate of threat protection

Pros and Cons

  • "It has a huge rate of protection. It's has a low level of positives and a huge rate of threat protection. It's easy to deploy and easy to implement. It has an incredible price rate compared to similar solutions."
  • "Performance needs improvement."

What other advice do I have?

Make sure to have good sizing because it matters for the performance of the features. Also make sure to have a good design. Before starting with the deployment and installation for Sourcefire. Have a technical session with the local Cisco office or the local department to provide a good design. I would rate it an eight out of ten. We have some architecture concerns. I'm not really sure that Cisco can quickly solve this concern. Palo Alto has a user-friendly interface for the management.
SC
Team Lead with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Straightforward setup, easy to use, and very stable

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution is rather easy to use."
  • "While the alerts they offer are good, it could improve it in the sense that they should be more detailed to make the alerts more useful to us in general. Sometimes the solution will offer up false positives. Due to the fact that the alerts aren't detailed, we have to go dig around to see why is it being blocked. The solution would be infinitely better if there was just a bit more detail in the alert information and logging we receive."

What other advice do I have?

We're just an end-user of the service. We don't have a business relationship with Cisco. The hardware we're using is still old. We bought it when the product was not under Cisco. That said, obviously, Cisco has now updated the product with new hardware. However, we've still got the old hardware. I would advise other organizations to go ahead and try the solution out. It's a good product. It's very straightforward and easy to implement especially when you compare it to other systems. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall. If they offered better and more detailed alerts, I would rank…
OS
Senior Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
User-friendly and provides important insights into SSL traffic

What is our primary use case?

The main features of the Cisco Sourcefire are that it's a next-generation firewall with new features. It has application security, advanced malware protection, URL filterings, encryption, and decryption. It is also used for email filtration and web application cyber protection. The deployment model we used was on-premises.

Pros and Cons

  • "The solution can be integrated with some network electors like Cisco Stealthwatch, Cisco ISE, and Active Directory to provide the client with authentication certificates."
  • "With the next release, I would like to see some PBR, so that you can do the configuration with the features."

What other advice do I have?

Providing videos and materials are useful, but really what you need is the experience in analyzing logs. Without that, you wouldn't be able to problem-solve on your own, even with the assistance of videos. I would recommend this solution. It's reliable and scalable, with easy installation and integration. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
GebremichaelTeklemariam
Networking and Security Engineer at IE Network Solutions PLC (Ethiopia)
Real User
Top 20
Has good malware detection and URL filtering features and technical support is good

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case of this solution is as a firewall, as an access control. We don't use it as access detection or as an intrusion prevention system, because we didn't configure it as a detector.

Pros and Cons

  • "I like most of Cisco's features, like malware detection and URL filtering."
  • "I don't think this solution is a time-based control system, because one cannot filter traffic based on time."

What other advice do I have?

The main problem we have when we implement security policies for our customers is scheduling. For example, customers want to take up with a time-based security policy, so that we have a different setup for working hours and non-working hours, and for weekends. But that feature is not supported by Cisco Sourcefire. So, I think it would be very good if Cisco can implement this scheduling feature. What's more, some of the configurations are a little bit complex, like the mapping. It's very difficult to rotate their VPN when you set up the access points. You must bypass those access points by…
NAWAF-TAWAKOL
Pre-Sales Engineer at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
User friendly GUI, good filtering capability, and good technical support

What is our primary use case?

We are a system integrator and this is one of the solutions that we provide to our customers. This solution is for inspecting traffic. It works with the firewall, email, etc. This is for an on-premises deployment.

How has it helped my organization?

This is a solution that we trust for protection.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of this solution is the filtering. It does well for eliminating email spam. The GUI is user-friendly.

What needs improvement?

The price of this solution could be improved. If the price is brought down then everybody will be happy. I would like to see a cloud-based version of this solution.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been familiar with this solution for five years.

What do I

See 2 more Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Reviews
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Cisco Sourcefire SNORT Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.